Diagonal Grid Rows

[chrobis]

Why do we arrange our grid rows perpendicular to the track, rather than diagonal, like the AMA, WSB, and MotoGP? I wonder this every time I watch a race start on tv. Is it to keep the grids from being stretched out too long? Would diagonal rows reduce 1st corner mobs?

[Scored51]

Probably because Bob Heaton is the one who paints the dots. He's a "straight up" type of guy with no funny business. :lol:

Why would you want to suggest giving up more ground the competition around you? It would also take up more physical space on the pavement (meaning further down the hill at HPR, etc). What I don't know is if ANY of the organizations you mention have put 71 bikes onto a single grid, diagonal or not.

[chrobis]

Actually, as I think about it, it would only add the depth of the diagonal once - for the entire grid - regardless of how many rows there are. The outside grid position of every row would be exactly where they currently are; the inside grid position of every row would be 2/3 of our row gap behind where they currently are.

If we have say 9 feet between rows (I'm just guessing here), position 2 would start 3 feet behind position 1; position 3 would start 6 feet behind position 1, position 4 (1st on 2nd row) would be 9 feet behind position 1 (still offset), but only 3 feet behind position 3 and 6 feet behind position 2. With our staggered row positions you would still be 18 feet behind the bike (two rows ahead of you) that is directly in front of you.

Rather than clumps of three bikes, gap, three bikes, gap, etc, the distribution of bikes would be much more uniform. Rather than pole position being only a lane advantage, this would give a slight distance advantage as well.

[Desmodromico]

I actually like the idea and the logic seems sound as well in regards to T1...the only issue I see is how to accurately draw these puppies on the track without some sort of jig. Worst case you could get differing angles which would make it even more of a mess as far as bunching.

[benfoxmra95]

after 12 years of gridding up for MRA, AMA, CMRA OMRRA.

I can tell you this, it makes no difference if its diagonal, horizontal, perpendicular, hexagonal.

Bikes will bunch up at turn 1.

The grid would have to be spread out all the way down the bottom of hill backwards at HPR to keep turn 1 a single file stream on the start.


What should be considered is the amount of room between rows to help keep grid incidents to a minimum and give you some sort of room to react to a stalled bike or a big wheelie in front of you.

[T Baggins]

Back in the day we used to do four x four without any staggering at all :shock:


* * * *
* * * *

and the rows were much closer together.

Now it's

* * *

* * *

(note, the forum auto formatter thingy isn't complying with me... the above should show offset rows.

and further apart. Much mo bettah, no? I'd still like to see more space between rows, but then at HPR we've already got the issue with short people not being able to see the lights from the bottom of the hill.

Most T1 incidents I've seen in the MRA have been due to poor judgement on the part of a single rider (or a mechanical failure like at HPR last round) - not because of "too many bikes all at once".

[rybo]

I happen to agree with Ben AND Tony on this one (dear god, someone must have tried to divide by zero or something)

Chris, the logic makes sense, but in practice it doesn't seem to matter. Especially at places like Hastings and HPR where T1 comes up pretty quickly after the start. In this case the riders on the BACK of the grid actually stand a better chance of catching the leaders as they get a better run (carry more speed) into the corner than the riders at the front (more straightaway space to gather speed). At Pueblo it's less of an issue because the run to T1 is pretty long.

I also agree that almost all of the T1 incidents I've seen are the cause of a single or a small group of riders that forget that it's impossible to WIN a race in the first corner, but VERY possible to lose one there (or even a season championship...)

s

[dragos13]

Regardless of the T1 pileup change, I think going to diagonal grids is a good idea. For one, first place is then gridded with a slight distance advantage over second place, second over third, and so on. It wont change the actual distance from one rider to the next in front of him, however. If its just a matter of where Bob draws the dots, then I say lets do it.

If someone can tell us the current distance from one row to the next, we could do the math and figure out a simple template. I imagine the superbike and MotoGP guys do it for a reason right? 8)

[Scored51]

The current MotoGP spacing per row regardless of whether they are running 3 or 4 bikes per row is 29.5 feet (9 meters). That means 71 bikes would need 25 rows 745 feet = .15 miles. All figures are rough estimates but would require Bob to walk 3/10 of a mile to check this grid (which we had in 2009) before getting back to the start button. How much additional fuel would you need to sit on that grid waiting for the above to happen, and how many would overheat?

[dragos13]

The current MotoGP spacing per row regardless of whether they are running 3 or 4 bikes per row is 29.5 feet (9 meters). That means 71 bikes would need 25 rows 745 feet = .15 miles. All figures are rough estimates but would require Bob to walk 3/10 of a mile to check this grid (which we had in 2009) before getting back to the start button. How much additional fuel would you need to sit on that grid waiting for the above to happen, and how many would overheat?

Not trying to doubt your math or anything, but when did we grid 71 riders? I had no idea it ever got that big for a single grid. Thanks for your info!!!

[phildrummond]

I thought 54 riders is our cap, no? 18 rows X 3 riders? I've chalked the grid once or twice and seem to recall 18 rows.

One more thing to note is while we don't do diagonals, Bob does stagger so at least it's 2 rows to the bike directly in front.

* * *
* * *

[marty]

Not trying to doubt your math or anything, but when did we grid 71 riders? I had no idea it ever got that big for a single grid. Thanks for your info!!!

i think it was endurance the weekend we HAD TO have 130+ riders to make the rest of the season. i'm pretty sure the LW grid was almost back to track exit. trying to launch a 125 uphill is no fun

[phildrummond]

And apparently spacing doesn't show once a post is submitted. Disregard my awesome previous graphic!

[dragos13]

We know what you mean:

Row 1 R_R_R_

Row 2 _R_R_R

and so on.


All we have to do is start the riders from pole position at the normal mark, position 2 a bike length (or maybe even half) behind pole, then third place behind him. Whatever line is currently used to draw diagonal, just have bob place the middle dot X feet back from there, and the third place dot X(2) feet back. Next row, postion 4 will start at the normal spot as diagonal grid, and so on.

[Scored51]

Not trying to doubt your math or anything, but when did we grid 71 riders? I had no idea it ever got that big for a single grid. Thanks for your info!!!

i think it was endurance the weekend we HAD TO have 130+ riders to make the rest of the season. i'm pretty sure the LW grid was almost back to track exit. trying to launch a 125 uphill is no fun

Yep, that's the race I was using. The math also takes into account one row grid break and the distance the grid needs to start behind the start/finish line. We didn't actually have that many show up for the grid, but that's what the grid sheets showed. If we're gonna take the money to let 'em race, we have to be willing to let 'em ride. I think there were 54 in middleweight alone.

My basic point was that any grid under the MotoGP plan will roughly double the length of any grid. Also take a look at the picture again. There is a six foot advantage (where there is 0 currently in the MRA) between each position on a single row, and 9 feet between grid between the grid spots that run over a row change. And there is a 30 foot gap between row positions (instead of 10 to 15 feet). Sounds to me like POINTS or QUALIFYING just gained a lot of importance. But I'm happy to say that's never been an issue in the club before. :shock: :lol:

[marty]

couple questions:

-wouldn't track marshall have final say in the matter? and yes, i know it is the off season and all we have is bs-ing on the forum for a couple of months :lol:

-what if we just did diagonal grids for premier classes ie ROR, middle grinder ss, etc. big classes like two wave endurance races and nov/am u/o would be the same.

i know it is just one more thing for bob to deal with but it would make the premier classes "stand out" more for specators

[cromer611]

I agree with marty, the premier classes would be cool.

but for nov/ama, the second wave (if there is any) would be griddin down by turn 15 at HPR. then they REALLY couldnt see the starting lights : )

[dragos13]

We dont have to increase the overall grid at all. If we just moved each bike slightly back from the next. It could be a bike length, half a bike length, etc. I dont know how much room there currently is from bike spot #1 and #4. No one gets farther away except the very last two riders, and it would only be by a matter of feet. I would love to see this setup for all classes, as having different dots for different classes would be a pain. I also think that the rider gridded at a higher grid position should have an advantage over the next riders.

Here is what I'm talking about.

[JenJen]

Here are the numbers for endurance middleweight & endurance lightweight. At the last race there was a total of 21 rows 42 for endurance middleweight, 14 for endurance Lightweight a grand total of 56 bikes griding up. When we have such large grids we have to do a break after 7 rows & another break between the 2 classes.

As for Ngtu at the last race we had 42 bikes ,15 rows with the break after the 7th row. Ngto there were 47 bikes, 17 rows with the break. The Novice numbers stayed consistent at HPR races.

Hopefully this helps with the conversation.

[joe859]

If you read what Chris wrote in post #3 and look at the diagram Casey drew, it's easy to see that the total grid length would be almost the same as it is now. Whether it's 4 rows or 24, total grid length is only about one bike length longer. The original markers for row numbers stay exactly where they were. I like this idea, it would be easy to lay out the spots, you just need 2 tape measures.

[JWinter]

I hate to state this...but the important thing is to finish the race first. I don't care if I grid up backwards, I still have to race 7 laps to win.

And even if I grid up 2 feet ahead of Moham, he is still going to kick my ass.

Jeff

[dave.gallant]

I hate to state this...but the important thing is to finish the race first. I don't care if I grid up backwards, I still have to race 7 laps to win.

And even if I grid up 2 feet ahead of Moham, he is still going to kick my ass.

Jeff

Stop being logical.

The offseason is about dreaming about getting faster without doing any real work to get there!

[Scored51]

Here are the numbers for endurance middleweight & endurance lightweight. At the last race there was a total of 21 rows 42 for endurance middleweight, 14 for endurance Lightweight a grand total of 56 bikes griding up. When we have such large grids we have to do a break after 7 rows & another break between the 2 classes.

As for Ngtu at the last race we had 42 bikes ,15 rows with the break after the 7th row. Ngto there were 47 bikes, 17 rows with the break. The Novice numbers stayed consistent at HPR races.

Hopefully this helps with the conversation.

Well, that proves Abraham Lincoln right when he said, "No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar." ops:

Casey's diagram looks pretty good if there is enough room to make a noticeable stagger. Would two or three feet between each bike in a row rather than the near 10 of MotoGP be enough? A possible benefit could be for the riders at the back of a large grid might be able to see the starting lights. It may also have the opposite effect. What about running a static test with a number of bikes in the critical positions during a lunch break on a lapping day before the season starts. It would be cheaper than coming up with a better light system if we care enough to change it.

[dragos13]

Well, that proves Abraham Lincoln right when he said, "No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar." ops:

Casey's diagram looks pretty good if there is enough room to make a noticeable stagger. Would two or three feet between each bike in a row rather than the near 10 of MotoGP be enough? A possible benefit could be for the riders at the back of a large grid might be able to see the starting lights. It may also have the opposite effect. What about running a static test with a number of bikes in the critical positions during a lunch break on a lapping day before the season starts. It would be cheaper than coming up with a better light system if we care enough to change it.

We could try it at the Race School mock race

I think it should be evenly gapped for all riders on the grid. Lets split the difference so that the distance between spots is the same for first, second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. My diagram almost shows this, just not perfect.

Also, my diagram would be backwards for HPR, as pole position would most likely be on the outside lane from the starting light, correct? So then, staggering from the top right and down going to the left, might actually help everyone see the light. Either way, people have trouble seeing it now so I dont think this will make it worse.

I would be happy to help Bob Saturday morning or whenever the dots get drawn. I think its a pretty simple idea, and easy to implement.

[stuntriders]

I am not sure if anyone else has mentioned this yet, but doing this would more or less remove the choice for the rider on pole to start from the outside.

Technically it doesn't remove the choice, but I am not sure who would choose to put themselves at a disadvantage.

Personally I like this idea.